lol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).An all of the above strategy is best... we have nothing to lose up here by exploiting fossil fuels. All of our power for our grid in the northern plains comes from coal fired power plants. It's here so we might as well use it. Plus it pays damn good to work in the fossil fuel industry. And guess what? Roughnecks/coal miners Buy lots of firearms and ammo....
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Except for minors, if they need government assistance, why are they not employed? we have a capital gains tax preference to help ensure venture capital employs labor.
Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).An all of the above strategy is best... we have nothing to lose up here by exploiting fossil fuels. All of our power for our grid in the northern plains comes from coal fired power plants. It's here so we might as well use it. Plus it pays damn good to work in the fossil fuel industry. And guess what? Roughnecks/coal miners Buy lots of firearms and ammo....
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
lol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).An all of the above strategy is best... we have nothing to lose up here by exploiting fossil fuels. All of our power for our grid in the northern plains comes from coal fired power plants. It's here so we might as well use it. Plus it pays damn good to work in the fossil fuel industry. And guess what? Roughnecks/coal miners Buy lots of firearms and ammo....
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Basically all of the northern plains have Unfound fossil fuel's underneath them there for the taking. And they are only going to be more accessible overtime because of modern technology.Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).An all of the above strategy is best... we have nothing to lose up here by exploiting fossil fuels. All of our power for our grid in the northern plains comes from coal fired power plants. It's here so we might as well use it. Plus it pays damn good to work in the fossil fuel industry. And guess what? Roughnecks/coal miners Buy lots of firearms and ammo....
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Not according to our President
Please tell me you posted that to be funny.
it still won't last forever, and it is dirtier and will be more expensive than fusion (an energy with a future).Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".
Shale oil has hardly even been touched…
As an addendum to my comments above...
It's worth noting that the labor force participation rate, as it has for mearly the last decade, will decrease over lustrum to decade so no matter who's POTUS. It will do so until Millennials, who actually outnumber Baby Boomers, fully ensconced in the workplace/-force, thereby replacing retiring/dying Baby Boomers. (That is to say having a job that corresponds to whatever is their career, not merely being employed at "some job." It won't be until 2028 that enough Baby Boomers will have retired and/or died so that Gen X-ers outnumber them.)
The number of Boomers has peaked in 2015?.......10 million more will "die off" during the next 10 years. Interesting. 1 million per year or 2739/day? Looks like a boon for dead body handlers.
With Trumps' Job Boom will there become a shortage of workers? Will the younger Boomers find a way back into the Labor Force? note: Many boomers would continue to work but employers discriminate due to health care costs IMVHO.
If Trump runs off 10million working age Illegals........whatever will he do? Bring in Euros? Euros do not want to landscape or clean Motel 6 rooms..........ahhhh I am getting ahead of myself. tsk tsk.Do you mean peaked as in "the largest quantity of Boomers to be alive at a given point in time?" Or do you mean "the the time when Boomers represented the largest quantity of people in the workforce/-place?"
The answer to the first question is that Boomers' numbers peaked in 1964, the last year of the Baby Boom and the time when the Baby Boomer generation had suffered the least impact from deaths and infirmity that it possibly could and ever will.
The answer to the second question, I think with regard to the context I've given -- people working at their "career job" rather just at "a job" - is that Boomers still are the largest group in the workforce/-place, but with our aging and dying, we won't, as a generation group, for much longer hold that status. I'm soon to be 60 and I'll retire at some point between 60 and 62, assuming I don't first die.
Strictly/macroeconomically speaking a worker "shortage" is what happens when an economy is at or below what's called "structural unemployment," (see also: Unemployment types and Making Sense of Unemployment Data - Page One Economics - St. Louis Fed) which, at the national level, economists put variously between 4% and 6%. Structural unemployment that exists due to a host of short-term factors, but the short of it, simply put, is that it's the rate of unemployment that is unavoidable. Accordingly, the U.S. economy has, in essence, had a worker shortage, i.e., been at structural unemployment levels, for quite some time.
What the structural unemployment rate should be at any given period of time can vary depending on where certain numerically significant industries are in their life cycle with regard to the economy in question. (The industry life cycle is not the same thing as the business cycle. Coal, for example, is reaching the end of its industry life cycle, whereas bioengineering is likely still in its nascence.) It's normal and perfectly fine that industries appear, grow, exist in a mature phase, decline and eventually disappear so long as something -- one or several other industries -- come about to replace the ones that cease to exist. As workers and creators of future workers, it's our "job" to notice what be the emergent industries and guide our children to develop the skills needed by employers in those industries, or, with regard to ourselves, ensure we possess or obtain while we still have "good jobs/careers" the requisite skills that will, at worst, remain in demand by industries that are currently in a mature state. Having the skills needed to work in a declining industry is only useful if one already has a job in that industry and one can be sure their job won't disappear before they no longer want/need to work in that industry.
Correction: that should have said "long term" or "unalterably enduring," or something other than "short term." "Short term" accidentally got left behind when I "slice and dice" deleted segments of the longer discussion I initially (and partially) composed to post. I chose to link-to the substantive content that I was going to write rather than write and here post my own didactic prose discussing it.
But they're available now and we have not even touched the potential, and they are only going to get cleaner. Reliable affordable Renewable energy which I have no problem with is still decades away...it still won't last forever, and it is dirtier and will be more expensive than fusion (an energy with a future).Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".
Shale oil has hardly even been touched…
it will still be getting more expensive to reclaim. And, we are making progress with energy efficiency. We simply need better energy infrastructure with improved capacitance.But they're available now and we have not even touched the potential, and they are only going to get cleaner. Reliable affordable Renewable energy which I have no problem with is still decades away...it still won't last forever, and it is dirtier and will be more expensive than fusion (an energy with a future).Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".
Shale oil has hardly even been touched…
Slant drilling for oil has made resources that were thought to be unattainable, attainable recently. And new technology to deal with Shale oil is a lot cheaper than ever thought to be.it will still be getting more expensive to reclaim. And, we are making progress with energy efficiency. We simply need better energy infrastructure with improved capacitance.But they're available now and we have not even touched the potential, and they are only going to get cleaner. Reliable affordable Renewable energy which I have no problem with is still decades away...it still won't last forever, and it is dirtier and will be more expensive than fusion (an energy with a future).Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Shale oil has hardly even been touched…
